In 1997, the Oregon Legislature approved and funded a Deschutes County juvenile corrections program called "County Youth Investment Program" (CYIP). The program proposed to deal with non-violent juvenile offenders locally rather than sending them to the state's Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). The program was sold to the legislature on the basis that it would rehabilitate youth in their own community at less cost and with no additional public safety risk. The saved money would be reinvested in crime prevention programs. The legislature allocated to CYIP funds that normally would have been allocated to the OYA. To measure the success of the program, it was supposed to deliver statistics to the statewide Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) and to be audited by the state.

In November of 1998, the Bend Bulletin published an opinion piece written by CVU President Steve Doell and founders Bob and Dee Dee Kouns. The piece was very critical of the restorative justice philosophy of the CYIP. And yet by 2000, the program was an "Innovations in American Government" award from Harvard University and was being touted as a model for counties all over Oregon and the United States.

By the summer of 2001, CYIP had not yet begun to provide information to JJIS, although all counties were mandated by the legislature to do so. No audit had been performed. Crime Victims United worked hard with legislators to get them to follow through with the audit. After much effort, a bill was passed authorizing the audit. Two months later it appeared that the legislature was balking at providing funding for the audit. Again Crime Victims United went to work, and funding was provided. The audit started in early 2002 with results to be reported in December.

On January 27, 2002, the Bend Bulletin published an extensive investigative article written by James Sinks. Among the article's many revelations were the following:

Far from saving money, CYIP was costing county taxpayers. The extra cost for 2001 was estimated at $500,000.

The youth in the program were reoffending at a significantly higher rate than those sent to OYA. The 77 youths in the program were cited for 54 felonies and 71 misdemeanors.

Although the program was touted to the legislature as targeting nonviolent property offenders, 62% had at least one prior referral for assault, menacing, sex crimes, weapons violations or robbery..

In early February, county officials met and pledged to tighten the program.

Later that month, another opinion piece written by CVU President Steve Doell and founders Bob and Dee Dee Kouns was published by the Bend Bulletin.

Bend Bulletin, February 16, 2002

By Steve Doell and Bob and Dee Dee Kouns

Over three years ago we at Crime Victims United wrote an opinion piece that was published in the Bulletin's Community Forum Section . It was an attempt to alert leaders and members of the community to the dangers of the proposed scheme called "Community Justice". Our main concern was and remains the lack of public safety and accountability associated with "Restorative Justice" programs.

As evident in the excellently researched article written by James Sinks recently published in The Bulletin on the Community Youth Investment program, our misgivings were not unfounded and apparently there are additional concerns as well.

It is clear that youth corrections officials in Deschutes County have not been timely, forthcoming or factual with information regarding program results. This began with a reluctance to be part of the statewide Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS). The lack of participation in JJIS until almost two years after the deadline (January 2000) for all Oregon counties made a quick and pertinent informal audit of the CYIP program impossible. The result was an inability to measure re-offense rates, which meant the all important public safety component went unknown. In our opinion the lack of cooperation on the part of Deschutes County officials was a deliberate tactic to hide program failure. 

Another example of this "bob and weave" technique was the underground resistance to the Secretary of State audit now being conducted. Deschutes County officials repeatedly and to this day insisted that the University of Oregon evaluation, bought and paid for by Deschutes County, should be considered just as unbiased and valid as the independent audit by the Secretary of State. It is as if the County officials think the rest of us have never heard about the proverbial "fox in the hen house".

They repeatedly gave misleading statements to legislative committees, the legislative fiscal office, the media and to us at CVU. Now they are asking us to believe they will be forthcoming, factual and timely in the future.

The root cause of this problem is the conceptual framework in which it was created. Deschutes County officials obviously took a concept (Restorative Justice) made it into a plan, added assumptions, developed it into an idea and instituted it as a policy while ignoring, threatening or punishing those who would oppose it. Our greatest concern is the continuing attempt to replicate the program statewide and across the country. This would be disastrous to the Juvenile justice system in Oregon and nationwide.

To reiterate some of our comments of November 7, 1998, "Citizens need to be aware of this 60's pop psychology approach to serious crime, which when implemented created a 34% increase in juvenile crime in Vermont." Additionally we wrote, "The whole notion of "Restorative Justice" is exactly what citizens are weary of and speaks to a lack of understanding about the mind set of both victims and offenders. This approach is an example of broad conceptual generalities and wordsmithing being used to develop policy, which on the application level doesn't work. These great sounding concepts are bad ideas and proven to be ineffective".

Oh, and apparently it costs more too, a lot more. Specifically this has taken away approximately four million dollars from the Oregon Youth Authority, a proven juvenile agency and its programs. Furthermore, it has required additional subsidies from taxpayers in Deschutes County which appear to be at least an additional one-half million dollars according to the Bulletin's article. 

We urge the legislature, the leaders and community members in Deschutes County to stop the application and advancement, of this poorly conceived, vigorously promoted, and needlessly expensive approach to juvenile justice. It is difficult to see who benefits from this program. Certainly not potential crime victims or the families of troubled youth who are committing crimes and are the ones desperate for help.

Bend Bulletin, November 7, 1998

By Steve Doell and Bob and Dee Dee Kouns

As Deschutes County moves forward with its "Community Justice" scheme, a very troubling element of that plan emerges: a theory called "Restorative Justice." Citizens need to be aware of this '60s pop-psychology approach to serious crime, which when implemented in Vermont created a 34 percent increase in juvenile crime.

The whole notion of "Restorative Justice" is exactly what citizens are weary of and speaks to a lack of understanding of the mindset of both victims and offenders. Both of these approaches are examples of broad conceptual generalities and wordsmithing being used to develop policy, which on the application level doesn't work. The great-sounding concepts are bad ideas and proven to be ineffective.

Like so many concepts that have driven juvenile justice, they have been developed by academics or administrators who probably haven't talked to a juvenile offender in 10 or 20 years, if at all.

The fact is that times are different, and so are kids. Since the 1930s when "Boys Town" and Father Flanagan developed a program for wayward youth, there has been a rather sentimental view of scruffy street urchins who just need a hand, a friend, a mentor, someone to take them fishing and the intrinsic good in them will emerge. It is a view that makes us all feel better about who we are. We want to believe it's true. There is still a population of kids who could fit this description; the are, however, not the kids who have created a crisis in community after community.

The promise of Restorative Justice from the victim's point of view can hardly be called justice. To reduce a crime that has taken away a person's ability to trust or feel safe to a "dispute" is cynical and disingenuous. This is purely and simply a veiled attempt at dismantling the justice system for the sake of expedience. When a person's home has been burglarized and the victim has been depersonalized, "negotiating" a settlement as though it were a conflict over a property line is adding insult to injury; there should be no responsibility placed on the victim.

From the offender's perspective, he would like nothing more than to negotiate his/her way out of real consequences. The whole mindset of an offender is mitigating consequences for his acts; Restorative Justice does nothing but feed into an offender's irresponsible mindset. To separate a person's acts from himself and say they are separate is mental health mumbo jumbo. Chronic offenders see this kind of thinking as nothing more than weakness that can be exploited. Restorative Justice may have a role in minor property "disputes" but not in cases that involve real victimization. It's true, victims do equate some retribution with justice and rightly so.

The idea of Retributive versus Restorative is a word game that attempts to polarize opinions regarding juvenile justice. It is a false argument. A whole continuum of services and interventions exist for juvenile offenders. Incarceration is only used as a last resort for chronic intransigent juvenile offenders who refuse to cease their hurtful behavior. An array of sanctions are used prior to incarceration, so to classify incarceration as retributive is self-serving and false. This is another attempt to displace responsibility from offenders. This will only serve to exacerbate an already decade-long rise in crime in Deschutes County.

Home | Top | Search